>> A better solution might be to make a showing of selective enforcement a means to strike down a law. If you can show that someone else was doing the same thing without being charged then the prosecution either has to charge them too or that law is repealed and no one can be charged with it anymore.

This is very interesting. I suspect there are a lot of unintended consequences that might follow.

▲

JackFr 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Congress (and state legislatures) pass laws, but don’t necessarily authorize the resources to prosecute all offenders, so prosecutors are given some latitude who to target.

IANAL, but my understanding is this: Malicious prosecution is a defense. Selective enforcement is not. The difference is for judges and juries to decide.

▲

AnthonyMouse 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you're going to say things like that you have to give examples.

▲

j16sdiz 10 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

This is basically asking for discovery of another case when you are being suing for one case.

I think the US court system is famous for being slow. Not sure if anyone wants to make it go even slower.

▲

salawat 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You just created a large, TBTF corp's veto. Pass a law or have a law passed a corp TBTF doesn't want? Break it and force the Government's hand to strike it down.

	▲	john01dav 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Ideally what would happen is the corporation starts having enforcement action against it and then its leadership is forced out to rescue said corporation from failing. This certainly seems better than just making TBTF (which I assume means too big to fail) entities be above the law.
	▲	AnthonyMouse 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]